OSHA Inspection: AURORA METALS DIVISON, L.L.C.

Issued

Feb 13, 2015

Abate by

Mar 21, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

OSH ACT of 1970 Section (5)(a)(1): The employer did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees in that employees were exposed to crush by and struck by hazards.    Aurora Metals Division, Inc. did not ensure that underhook lifting devices were marked with the rated load capacity. Below the hook lifting devices used by employees could fail, dropping heavy loads and molten metal that can strike employees.     a) Employees in the sanding and polishing area are exposed to struck by hazards from a below the hook lifting device used to transfer parts into the polishing machine.    b) Employees in the sand foundry are exposed to struck by hazards from a below the hook lifting device used to transfer metal and molten metal to and from furnaces.     Abatement certification is required of this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(c).

Issued

Feb 13, 2015

Abate by

Jun 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(c)(4)(ii): The energy control procedures did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy, including, but not limited to items of this section:    The employer provided energy control procedures that did not clearly and specifically outline the scope, purpose, authorization, rules, and techniques to be utilized for the control of hazardous energy. Energy control procedures were not established on the Mazak Multiplex 430 CNC machine in order to provide protection to the employees performing setup on the machine, exposing the employees to amputation hazards during accidental startup, where the machine's spindle can achieve speeds of 3000 RPM.     Abatement certification is required of this item in accordance with the requirements of 1903.19(c)

Issued

Feb 13, 2015

Abate by

Jun 30, 2015

Penalty

Initial $0 · Current $0

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.147(d)(4)(i): Lockout or tagout devices were not affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees:    The employer did not ensure that lockout or tagout devices were affixed to each energy isolating device by authorized employees. During setup activities on the Mazak Multiplex 430, the employer did not ensure that the employees performing setup had affixed an energy isolating device to the machine, exposing the employee to amputation injury due to unexpected startup.     Abatement certification is required of this item in accordance with the requirements of 1903.19(c)

Issued

Feb 13, 2015

Abate by

Apr 24, 2015

Penalty

Initial $4,500 · Current $3,150 Reduced

General-duty citation text

29 CFR 1910.212(a)(3)(ii): Point(s) of operation of machinery were not guarded to prevent employee(s) from having any part of their body in the danger zone(s) during operating cycle(s):    The employer did not ensure that the point of operation was guarded to prevent employees from having any part of their body in the danger zone which exposed them to amputation injuries during operating cycles on the following machines:    a) The door interlock guards were turned to off on the Okuma and Howa 2SP-35H (Shop ID: 1828), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Small Cell section of facility)    b) The door interlock guards were turned to off on the MW200 (Shop ID: 1916), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Small Cell section of facility)    c) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Mazak Multiplex 430 (Shop ID: 1605), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Small Cell section of facility)    d) Door interlocks were not present on the Puma 250 (Shop ID: 1522), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Small Cell section of facility)    e) Door interlocks were not present on the Puma 250 (Shop ID: 1560), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Small Cell section of facility)    f) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Okuma 25P-V40 (Shop ID: 1799), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    g) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Youji YV-320E (Shop ID: 1954), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    h) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Youji YV-320E (Shop ID: 1955), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    i) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Okuma 2SP-V80 (Shop ID: 1820), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    j) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Okuma 2SP-V55 (Shop ID: 1664), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    k) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Puma V550 (Shop ID: 1614), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    l) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Youji YV-800ATC (Shop ID: 1788), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    m) The door interlock guards were disabled on the Youji YV-800ATC (Shop ID: 1943), exposing employees to the spindle and tools during the operating cycle. (Large Cell section of facility)    n) The side guards on the seven Burr-King 760 sanders were not affixed in place, exposing employees to the rotating belt and in-running nip point where the belt contacts the pulley.     o) Floor sander 2 did not have a side guard, exposing employees to the rotating belt and in-running nip point where the belt contacts the pulley.    p) The left-hand side guard on floor sander 3 was not affixed to the machine, exposing employees to the rotating belt and in-running nip point where the belt contacts the pulley.      Abatement certification is required for this item in accordance with the requirements of 29 CFR 1903.19(c).